In the simplest terms, the spine is a column made of vertebrae and discs. The vertebrae provide the support and structure of the spine while the spinal discs, located between the vertebrae, act as cushions or “shock absorbers.” These discs also contribute to the flexibility and motion of the spinal column. Over time, the discs may become diseased or infected, may develop deformities such as tears or cracks, or may simply lose structural integrity (e.g., the discs may bulge or flatten). Impaired discs can affect the anatomical functions of the vertebrae, due to the resultant lack of proper biomechanical support, and are often associated with chronic back pain.
Several surgical techniques have been developed to address spinal defects, such as disc degeneration and deformity. Spinal fusion has become a recognized surgical procedure for mitigating back pain by restoring biomechanical and anatomical integrity to the spine. Spinal fusion techniques involve the removal, or partial removal, of at least one intervertebral disc and preparation of the disc space for receiving an implant by shaping the exposed vertebral endplates. An implant is then inserted between the opposing endplates.
Spinal fusion procedures can be achieved using a posterior or an anterior approach, for example. Anterior interbody fusion procedures generally have the advantages of reduced operative times and reduced blood loss. Further, anterior procedures do not interfere with the posterior anatomic structure of the lumbar spine. Anterior procedures also minimize scarring within the spinal canal while still achieving improved fusion rates, which is advantageous from a structural and biomechanical perspective. These generally preferred anterior procedures are particularly advantageous in providing improved access to the disc space, and thus correspondingly better endplate preparation.
There are a number of problems, however, with traditional spinal implants including, but not limited to, improper seating of the implant, implant subsidence (defined as sinking or settling) into the softer cancellous bone of the vertebral body, poor biomechanical integrity of the endplates, damaging critical bone structures during or after implantation, and the like. In summary, at least ten, separate challenges can be identified as inherent in traditional anterior spinal fusion devices. Such challenges include: (1) end-plate preparation; (2) implant difficulty; (3) materials of construction; (4) implant expulsion; (5) implant subsidence; (6) insufficient room for bone graft; (7) stress shielding; (8) lack of implant incorporation with vertebral bone; (9) limitations on radiographic visualization; and (10) cost of manufacture and inventory.
Some of the common problems with spinal implants include movement or expulsion of the implant once inserted between adjacent vertebrae. In particular, when the flexible tissue (the annulus) connecting the disks is severed in the surgical procedure additional vertical and lateral instability in the joint is induced. In order to reduce implant movement or expulsion from between the vertebral bodies, spinal implants may be affixed to adjacent vertebrae, for example, using additional fixation elements, such as screws. The use of additional fixation outside of the joint space, for example, by using screws and plates, screws and rods, or screws alone can limit the amount of displacement that occurs as the vertebra move away from one another reducing movement and activity. Unfortunately, screws can loosen, back out, and even break over time.
A number of screw retention or secondary screw fixation devices are available to try to combat the problem of back out. For example, a screw locking plate and fastener assembly may be placed over the heads of the screws or a snap or c-clip may be embedded into the implant body. Typical screw retention devices rigidly fix the screws within the device. This rigidity does not allow for movement of the screws, however, and can result in increased loading in the joint space. In other words, the loading can create pressure points where the screws are located and can produce undesired bone remodeling at those locations. Similarly, implants having aggressive teeth or ridges can remodel the bone around these sharp features providing instability and movement in the joint assembly. Rigid fixation, increased loading and pressure points, and movement and instability of the implant can result in mechanical failure of the screws. Mechanical failure of the screws and associated pieces of the screw retention devices (e.g., screw locking plate, c-clip, etc.) places the patient at risk for unsecured screws and the like in the vertebral disk space. Thus, there remains a need for a screw retention mechanism which secures the screw, but does not create any of the problems mentioned above for traditional screw retention devices.